Assignment on Comparative Critical Review on Civil Society

In ‘Development as Freedom’ by Amartya Sen, freedom has defined as both the primary end, as well as the principal definitions of development itself. Up till now, many economists have been critically approaching toward development that highlighting the expansion in , increasing the personal earnings, industrialization, technological improvement, or else, social modernization. On the other hand, Sen has differently suggested around people’s nature. Along with his deficient of a visible point of view for achieving his declared objectives that make ‘Development as Freedom’ not only a misleading one, more than this, it is also quite risky. Sen has given two main reasons that described why freedom must be the main component of development. The first reason was mentioned that, the main and only acceptable appraisal of the human expansion is mainly and eventually the improvement of freedom itself. Then, the second reason that he has described was appeared to be that the attainment of development is reliant on the unrestricted intervention of people.

At this point, there are few people who might eventually agree with the first reason, as long as the freedom definition itself is broad enough to integrate this freedom from both material or spiritual desire, which appears does for Sen. The second reason presented by Sen has been considered to be further controversial inside the majority economics and common dissertation, in which the reason typically given by the economists with a purpose to cut off the public expenses, which included as well housing, education, healthcare, along with the social welfare. In this stage, Sen has proposed that poor economies would not afford these whole expenses, and also that development (economic development) should occur first, and only then, the societies would be able to afford to maintain the  of their people. Furthermore, Sen also has breakdown with this accepted belief, delivering pieces of evidence that high earnings do not compulsory trigger wellbeing. In addition to this, he has also argued that the welfare expenses could be branch to instead of draining on economic development, particularly due to they are considered as labor-intensive, and labor is quite cheap in some poor countries across the world. Thus, Sen has argued that there is a necessity to approach political freedoms, along with the civil rights not over the definitions of eventually attaining the growth of Gross Domestic Product or GDP. Instead, as a direct product in their own privilege. Hence, according to Sen, freedom is, indeed, a product due to it has the capability to produce growth (Sen, 2001).

On the other hand, William Easterly in his ‘The Tyranny of Experts’ has highlighted his ardent argument in contradiction of the conservative approach toward economic growth. In the jurisdiction of generous interference, the standing regulation has frequently been that you could encounter a poor country, and then, with enough supports of supplies, experts, along with the governmental correctives will eventually turn that country to become a rich one and lessen the miseries of poverty as well. On the other hand, Easterly has clearly stated that, this is an unintelligent perception that has flashed more chaos than good side. In fact, in this book, Easterly has clearly presented a number of quotable samples throughout a common sweep of history, along with the culture of the proper way for the best-intentioned strategies of experts concluded with only a few or even counterproductive results. Easterly has answered that the poor people must have similar rights just same as the rich ones. He has also mentioned that implementing equal rights will be a greater method to solve development issues. He also observed that successful development as being a consequence of hardworking individuals and families, along with a bit intervention from outside. In conclusion, Easterly has presented a robust, selective case meant for the significance of not always listening to the development experts who might have done further harm than the good things in the context of development for both social and economic ones. For this reason, easterly has named them as ‘Tyranny’ (Easterly, 2015).

Paul Collier has appeared to get closer to the perception presented by Easterly on the query of aid. For this reason, Collier has assumed that the rich countries actually could do something to help out the poor countries such as Africa, if those countries would involve much more handouts. However, it has appeared that Collier has a more convincing analysis than Easterly for two main reasons. The first one is due to the fact that his analysis properly explained of things that have caused poverty. The second reason is due to he has also presented some remedies which are more reasonable. In addition to this, Collier has suggested that there are 4 traps whereas a number of poor countries would tend to fall. The first trap was mentioned as the civil war. He clearly mentioned that civil war has not supporting in the legacy of colonization, or else income inequality, or the political authoritarianism of interest group. Instead, civil war has been resulting to increase the conflict risks. The second trap mentioned by Collier was named the ‘resource curse.’ He has presented Nigeria as an example of how the “resource rents make democracy malfunction.” The third trap was the non-coastal countries are  due to they are considered to be reliant on the transportation systems from their neighbor countries if they really want to trade. The last trap mentioned by Collier was a bad governance, in which he proposed that there is less intervention in constantly misgoverned in poor countries (Collier, 2007).

Despite the fact of different approaches, the three arguments which derived from Sen, Easterly, and Collier actually have the similar purpose, which is, the governments, along with the political representatives need to view the civil rights further and make a proper decision to remove poverty from the poor countries across the world. Only then, the social welfare would be achieved equally for people, no matter in which countries they belong to.

Globalization, Development, and Poverty of Civil Society

Globalization which has been described as the developing integration of both economies and societies across the globe. In fact, the globalization ranges commencing the challenges of both trade and services, the capital movement, the development, as well as the poverty of the population in the world, internal relocation to easier both communication and transportation across the world. Hence, globalization has been described as a complicated process that impacts a number of lives, and beyond this, improved economic interdependence among various countries. In addition to this, the International Monetary Fund or known better as IMF has highlighted four primary factors of globalization itself which are (Dept., 2007):

·         The movements of both investment and capital

·         Trade along with the business transactions

·         Knowledge distribution 

·         People movement and migration

Every single process of globalization is claimed to impact and impacted by political, socio-cultural, economics, natural and legal aspects. Globalization has in a number of ways been associated with development that appeared in whole over the world, of which one of the ends development goals is to reduce poverty. Poverty itself has described generally as the scarcity or else a circumstance in which an individual appears to be lack of some material possessions amount or money. It is actually a circumstance whereas a society or an individual appears to be lack of the compulsory needs to enable them in enjoying a minimum average of living in society. Moreover, The United Nations has defined poverty to be the incapability of attaining the selections and occasions. This circumstance has also explained in some different scenes as not gaining sufficient amount in food and clothes, not getting any access to earn education, not getting any access to earn medical supports, and/or not having an occasion to get a job and earn proper income. This poverty has been considered as a human right violation by the United Nations since the lack of primary measurements to take part in society effectively will surely effect in the appearances of insecurity, helplessness, individuals segregation, families along with the communities into the mainstream of societies (Mertus & Mertus, 2010).

Up till now, there are various different statements been argued in the development community, in accordance with how much progress has been effort to against and reduce poverty. In fact, research has also shown that there are some contradictory arguments along with the calculations, in which some of them have claimed that, by large and general, poverty is on decline, meanwhile, some others still argue oppositely. A study has reported that the globalization has succeeded in boosting the incomes and also supporting to raise the standards of living. Besides this, it is also assumed that the poor are further probably to share in the achievements derived from globalization (Samimi & Jenatabadi, 2014). However, another study has suggested that the globalization has failed in encouraging development, and for this reason, it has kept on creating instability and poverty as well (Eriksen, 2018). Thus, it cannot be fair to claim that globalization will eventually result in the reduction of poverty.

By chance, the argument around the effect that could be appeared from this globalization along with the development of poverty and income inequality appearance has not been completely conflicting. For example, amongst the extreme perceptions have insisted that development over globalization has been increasing the world’s wealth, and also reducing poverty. Completing this, the opposite extreme perception has been blaming globalization for increasing poverty and preserving economic dependence of the poor countries across the world. Globalization itself has the capability to provide benefit every single aspect, as well as the poor ones. However, globalization has appeared to be an irreversible thing that eventually generates both champions and also failures amongst the poor. For this reason, the query that actually requires to be addressed is how the world could govern the process of globalization better, in order to make it further comprehensive and impartial than the conditions presented at the moment. That is, it is actually not globalization that has to be out of control. Instead, it is poor governance system of globalization that requires to be addressed. In fact, if managed fairly and appropriately designed to deliver benefit for all, then is a big opportunity that globalization could act as a positive determination (Neutel & Heshmati, 2006).

In a conclusion, there is a clear and visible relationship between globalization, development, and poverty across the world. In brief, globalization has been requiring for the huge developments, with a purpose to realize the main goals of globalization itself. For example, globalization has forced the market to develop according to the current condition. Hence, these developments in the context to pursuit globalization might only able to be realized by the countries that have adequate resources and capital. As a consequence, the poor countries that eventually do not acquire sufficient resources and capital would end up to left behind this term of globalization. Following this, with the fact that the world’s economy would definitely following globalization, which means that globalization will benefit the countries that have succeeded in realizing some developments to adjust themselves in the world of globalization. On the other side, the poor countries will remain to be poor due to the fact that those countries are unable to realize and adjust to make some developments to support globalization. Thus, the wealthy countries will become wealthier, while the poor countries will get poorer, and hence, the amount of poverty will be increased in those poor countries.

However, globalization itself cannot be blamed completely as the cause of poverty to have appeared in any country in the whole world. Instead, there is also a requirement for a Global Collective Action to make sure in maintaining a stable global economic development, as well as decrease the probability of and comprise the potential impacts of global instability by way of that it is the poor countries that are recognized for its instability. This international policy synchronization, indeed, ought to assemble acceptable and further actual assistance to reduce poverty which appeared in various poor countries, to eventually realize the real and fair globalization (Rahim, Abidin, Ping, Alias, & Muhamad, 2014).

References of Civil Society

Collier, P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It. Oxford University Press.

Dept., I. M. (2007). World Economic Outlook, October 2007: Globalization and Inequality. International Monetary Fund.

Easterly, W. (2015). The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. Basic Books.

Eriksen, T. H. (2018). Globalization. Handbook of Political Anthropology.

Mertus, J. A., & Mertus, J. (2010). The United Nations and Human Rights: A Guide for a New Era. Routledge.

Neutel, M., & Heshmati, A. (2006). Globalisation, inequality and poverty relationships: a cross country evidence.

Rahim, H. L., Abidin, Z. Z., Ping, S. D., Alias, M. K., & Muhamad, A. I. (2014). Globalization and its effect on world poverty and inequality. Global Journal of Management and Business .

Samimi, P., & Jenatabadi, H. S. (2014). Globalization and economic growth: Empirical evidence on the role of complementarities.

Sen, A. (2001). Development as Freedom. OUP Oxford.