Ethic and development

Ethics and Morality -- Ethics and Development

The problem of "development" (or, perhaps "progress" and "advancement" also fits in this context) is that while many millions of citizens of the world have been blessed by dramatic progress (technological, industrial, and communications) over the past few decades, many millions are being left behind. Indeed, while millions are living better, living more comfortable lives, countless millions are not benefiting in the least from this social and economic development. In fact, the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is said to be widening, and this is a cause for great concern.

Millions of African children are AIDS and HIV victims, simply because they were born to mothers who suffered from AIDS and HIV; millions of other African people are suffering malnutrition, starvation, and live in hopelessness and dread. Millions of people in Third World countries do not have clean reliable drinking water or proper medical care and also lack good quality nutritional resources.

There are many ways to approach these issues, and many points-of-view along the way to trying to understand and analyze these issues; this paper will delve into the thoughts and factual data presented by respected authors and writers, and also will present the views of critics who critique those same writers; indeed, the analysis of high-caliber authors who critique the work of other authors -- from the same genre as the critic -- is very instructive for the person wishing to gain wisdom and perspective from august material.

To wit: when a person wishes to attempt to become well-informed with reference to the issues that have been outlined in this introduction, and the key problems facing the human race, studying the writings of respected researchers and authors is a good beginning.

Amartya Sen

In his book, Development as Freedom, according to a critique of his book in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics

, "Development is viewed as a process of expanding different kinds of freedom -- freedoms involved in political, social, and economic processes" (Biswas, 2002). Biswas writes that a report (the 1999 Human Development Report) indicates that nearly one billion "cannot meet their basic consumption requirements" and that "850 million adults are illiterate."

Biswas, in introducing his own critique of Sen's work, also points out that 260 million children who should be in primary and secondary grades, are not in school -- there is either no school, or it is too far away for them to attend. "How can we progress toward building a society with less deprivation?" he asks. How can the "haves" build a society "where people will have better opportunities to 'lead the kind of lives they have reason to value'," he adds, with a quote from Sen's book tucked into his question.

A few of the things Biswas paraphrases -- in terms of freedoms all peoples should enjoy -- from Sen's book, include: freedom from hunger, malnutrition and poverty; freedom from diseases which are treatable; and freedom from being illiterate (put another way -- the absolute "right" as a citizen of the world to be able to read, in order to advance one's knowledge of the world present, past, and future, if there is to be a future for the humble among us).

When Sen speaks of political freedom, he is writing about the opportunity to be a participant in the formation and constitution of governments. And in order to expand these freedoms listed above, it is widely believed in economic circles that the growth of "income per capita" is the most, or nearly the most, crucial element in the mix. That idea is not necessarily true, according to Sen's take on development.

The growth of income per capita is not the most dominant indicator of development, Sen contends, since, in Biswas' words, "such nonmaterial benefits as the freedom to live long, the ability to escape avoidable morbidity or to participate in political decisions and social choice" are not among those elements reflected in per capita income. Money alone, Sen clearly believes, is not intrinsically connected to freedom.

Sen believes that political freedom and the chance for open and free discussion about all issues will ultimately bring about social change and better economic futures for people.

It's interesting that when Sen began what eventually became his well-received book (Development as Freedom), he was actually preparing a series of discussion papers for the World Bank, according to an article in Social Analysis

by Andrew Davidson. In his book, Sen "quickly departs from long-standing economic thought, taking issue with development fetishism and its focus on economic growth ... " (Davidson, 2002).

In presenting his ideas, Sen hits home by challenging the issue of just what constitutes "the good life"; and, Davidson writes, Sen is justified in wondering "whether development is 'expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy'," and is right in challenging the old notion that social and political rights will naturally follow economic prosperity. "To the contrary," Davidson continues, "Sen argues that both social and political freedom are in fact conducive to economic growth," and the book Sen has written provides "an expansive reflection on the relationship between development and globalization."

Over and over Sen "provides a unique blend of classical economic thought with moral philosophy," Davidson explains. And in Sen's view, he does not discount the value of approaching the future with an eye towards globalization; but he believes that "market freedoms by themselves are insufficient to the task at hand."

Meanwhile, why are market freedoms -- which are heralded by numerous Western leaders as signs of emerging democracy in places like China and Vietnam -- not sufficient to bring meaningful change? Why does Sen call market solutions (in Davidson's words) "the new superstition of absolute faith"?

Because "individuals are not free if they suffer hunger, illiteracy, homelessness, or illness," Davidson continues, paraphrasing Sen's book. This view of Sen's that market solutions, or money per se, cannot encourage freedom, "may be news to those bunkered within the World Bank," but as a respected economist, and Nobel prize winner, Sen's voice will be, and has been, heard.

Another key point that Sen makes, and Biswas elaborates on, is that longevity is likely more tied to "public expenditures on health care and more equal distribution of income" than it is on per capita, per se. And the well-being of people in south Korea, Sen explains, is not that much different from the well-being of people in India, albeit India experienced only a 1.4% income growth between 1960-1980, and South Korea enjoyed a 7% growth in economic terms over the same period.

And so, incomes double for Indians every 50 years, but Koreans' incomes double every ten years, is a factual statement. But to say, "an Indian will, on average, be twice as well as his grandfather; a Korean 32 times" as well as his grandfather, Biswas continues, pointing out Sen's very understandable and reasonable economic logic, is to "presume a strong positive correlation between the growth of income per capita and the consequent increase in well-being."

William Greider

Looking at the United States -- and not, as Sen does, at the global picture -- there are plenty of important and challenging issues facing the "greatest country on earth," as many patriots call the U.S.

And meanwhile, if one-fifth of American's children are living in poverty -- as William Greider asserts in his book -- then clearly Americans have no right to beat on their collective chests and spread the word all around the world as to what a great, fair, rich, just nation we are. And what's worst, as Greider points out (p. 17), is that while the " ... mass consumption society constructed during the twentieth century was an egalitarian triumph in the sense that nearly all were enabled to participate"

-- now, the "future of mass consumption is ... paradoxically, threatened by the growing inequalities of wealth and incomes."

And, how did working families manage to survive over the past three decades; how did they feed their kids, make the mortgage / rent and the car payment, and health care costs, while "hourly wages stagnated in real terms" (18) and home equity drew down in the last twenty years from 70% to 51% of mortgage value? They were dramatically squeezed in their ability to keep "up with the Jones," so to speak, and they "worked harder and longer," Greider explains. More and more women, wives and mothers entered the full-time workforce to keep families afloat. Moreover, they "borrowed against their savings, with credit cards and lines of bank credit that steadily drew down the accumulated equity they owned in their homes."

And while this was occurring, the retirement savings of millions of families was "destroyed," Greider writes (19) when a "horrendous disintegration of stock prices" caused the loss of between $6 and $8 trillion in capital. These things being said, Greider wonders (21) "what future" there can be "genuine democracy" if "ever greater concentrations of wealth and power are the inescapable result of our economic system."

The chapter in which Greider begins in earnest to lay out his theories and philosophy is "The Soul of Capitalism"; he writes about the "nature of American capitalism" and "why it generates great injury and destructive consequences right alongside the material abundance." And with that as an editorial backdrop, Greider asserts (25) that "American capitalism is ripe for reinvention," and that though this idea has been a "taboo subject," and in fact during the Cold War era discussing such a reform of capitalism was bordering on being "vaguely subversive," it may now be "the patriotic thing to do."

While he sounds idealistic in much of what he writes, he also has roots in the political realities which, in large measure, will prevent the very re-inventing of capitalism that he believes should happen. Those roots are seen on page 32, as he discusses the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still "not permitted to impose emissions standards on hundreds of older power plants that were 'grandfathered' in as exempt under the original law." He correctly points out that these plants "now generate the bulk of America's electricity -- and the bulk of its air pollution."

He goes on to say that it is "obvious" that "protective laws are highly vulnerable to political mood swings, not to mention the swarm of lobbyists and lawyers and old fashioned forms of corruption." So, readers know he's not an idealist blind to the realities of making dramatic changes to capitalism.

But what he does not mention (this book, being published in 2003, went to press perhaps too early for the following to be noted) is that the current administration in the White House has unilaterally changed regulations within the Clean Air Act, dramatically amended regulations, allowing polluting power plants even more carte blanche than Greider discussed.

To wit, in August, 2003, the EPA essentially repealed the "new source review" provision of the Clean Air Act, according to the Natural Resource Defense Council

(NRDC), which has more visibility and credibility than any environmental advocacy group in the U.S. The EPA, according to reports published in the mass media and reprinted by the NRDC, basically exempts "17,000 older power plants, oil refineries and factories across the country from having to install pollution controls when they replace equipment -- even it the upgrade increases pollution -- as long as the cost of the replacement does not exceed 20% of the cost of what the EPA broadly defines as a 'process unit.'"

What that means is, for example, upgrades at nine Tennessee Valley Authority power plants would be allowed, even though those plants "increased air pollution by hundreds of thousands of tons," the NRDC reports, they would not have to install modern pollution controls, expensive pollution controls, because they "cost less than 20% of the replacement value of the process units."

In addition to the obvious results of dirtier rather than cleaner air, and the not-so-tacit cooperation between the current administration and utility / power companies, the General Accounting Office (watchdog over government agencies) found that the EPA "lacked hard data to support its revision last year of clean air ruled in favor of utility plants and refineries," the NRDC reported. The GAO statement asserted that the EPA "relied primarily on anecdotal information from the industries most affected," in making it's ruling in favor of polluting power plant owners. In other words, the EPA was using justifications (for leniency regarding Clean Air Act regulations) provided by the industry.

And why this matter with the EPA and the Clean Air Act is important, in terms of an analysis of Greider's book, is that given the new post-9/11 powers in the executive branch of the U.S. government -- partly "given" to the White House by the Congress and in part simply accumulated by the executive branch in the name of "fighting terrorism" -- making any concrete changes to America's system of government is not going to be easily accomplished. (This paper does not intend to enter into the entire question of the changes in the U.S. political system following 9/11, but it is worth mentioning, and clearly has allowed the White House a free hand in making numerous decisions.)

And if the failure to enforce laws that protect citizens from unhealthy air (and it is pivotal to realize this administration has also made dramatic and unilateral changes to the Clean Water Act, and has made other unilateral decisions that are highly questionable in terms of protecting the environment, such as allowing the bulldozing of new roads in National Wilderness Areas, in spite of previous regulations preventing those new roads) can be so cavalierly brushed aside, with scant protest, why does Greider feel that there is the possibility of changing the enormous, well-engrained system of capitalism to any degree at all?

In his final chapter, Greider states (325) that though America "has its full quota of fools and scoundrels," as a whole, "the people are quite remarkable, resourceful, and serious about their lives, often courageous in the worst circumstances." And he goes on to state that America is "not a nation of addled sheep (at least not most of us)." But, the bigger question has to be, are there enough sheep (voters) to go along with government as usual, business as usual, or will enough people rise up to follow Greider's lead, as he talks on page 336 about "a platform for life that everyone shares from the start, regardless of circumstances ... "?

Peter Singer

Peter Singer begins his book, One World: The Ethics of Globalization

, with a very sharp contrast in recent events: the planes crashing into the World Trade Center, and carbon dioxide belching out of the exhaust pipes of gas-guzzling SUVs. One event, the terrorist attacks in New York City, was very easy to define and analyze; the other, carbon dioxide and it's evil result, global warming (the greenhouse effect), is not so easy to come to grips with. However, Singer quickly points out the global connection with the fact of driving cars that get poor gas mileage: "When people in rich nations switch to vehicles that use more fuel than the cars they used to drive, they contribute to changes in the climate of Mozambique or Bangladesh ... " And, he continues, those changes "may cause crops to fail, sea levels to rise, and tropical diseases to spread," as the world continues to warm up due to mankind's (especially the highly industrialized nations) continual contribution to global warming.