This paper examines the Ribeira Azul development project in Salvador, Brazil, as a case study in applying Amartya Sen's "development as freedom" framework. Sen argues that human freedom and development are mutually reinforcing, and that removing constraints — such as lack of access to housing, water, education, and healthcare — enables economic progress. Drawing on Frediani's (2007) evaluation, the paper assesses how well the World Bank-backed project translated Sen's capabilities approach into practice. It finds that while infrastructure improvements were made, the program fell short in key areas: residents lacked genuine economic capability, participation was restricted, and many reverted to prior behaviors rather than building on new opportunities.
The development project at Ribeira Azul in Salvador, Brazil embodies the principles of Amartya Sen's development as freedom framework, wherein freedom and development are closely linked. Such principles emphasize measures of human development as the measures of poverty, rather than a traditional approach focused on income (Frediani, 2007). The Ribeira Azul program focused on a number of key tasks, including the upgrade of critical infrastructure such as water, sanitation, and lighting, as well as the construction of new homes and human development projects aimed at improving the population's access to education and healthcare.
Amartya Sen's theory of development as freedom holds that greater levels of human freedom and development are intertwined. Sen argues that "freedom is central to the process of development for two reasons": the evaluative reason and the effectiveness reason. The former reflects improvements in outcomes, while the latter reflects that the achievement of development depends on the free agency of people (Sen, 1999, p. 4). His central idea is that human development is facilitated by freedom from constraints such as lack of access to food, housing, water, education, and healthcare.
Sen's ideas appear to have been enacted, at least partially, in Ribeira Azul. By enhancing access to education and healthcare and by providing more stable, safer living conditions, the lives of the people in that area were improved, even if their incomes were not. Sen's argument, however, is that when such preconditions are in place, economic development will follow. This contrasts with a traditional top-down approach in which economic development is supposed to bring benefits to the people — an approach that works well only when income distribution in society is relatively even.
"Frediani's critique of housing and capability restrictions"
"Residents' inability to afford utilities and restricted participation"
Frediani's conclusion is that while on the surface it looks like the World Bank has begun to adopt some of Sen's doctrine into its development programs, in practice it has all but failed to reflect Sen's thinking. Some of the restrictions placed on the development were artificial and unnecessary, while others resulted from a lack of forethought. Yet certain failures cannot genuinely be attributed to the program itself. Where the freedoms involving house size and the ability to afford living costs broke down, the cause was partly a lack of follow-through on the part of residents, who did not translate greater equality of opportunity into greater personal success.
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.