| Amartya Sen uses the concept of freedom quite extensively in his writings, and this deserves to be closely scrutinized. Sen's concept of freedom is shown through a careful textual analysis of his own writings. These are contrasted with other conceptions of freedom provided by the Utilitarian, Rawlsian, and Libertarian philosophical traditions. The conflict between his neoclassical theoretical outlook and his own empirical work is noted. Further, a critique is made in two areas. Sen has argued that wider educational access will act to alleviate poverty. Sen has also argued that markets enhance people's freedom overall. In the case of education, evidence from the U.S. Census Bureau indicates that although educational achievement and access widened in the U.S., poverty measured in terms of quintile thresholds and the Gini coefficient shows that income inequality has not declined in the United States. Markets have effects on the institutional structure that surrounds them. They affect the way people frame choices and view situations that affect their belief about what is possible. Because of the effects of social class on education and the effects markets have on people and institutions, Sen misses some important links between social class and freedom. The conclusion is that Sen's concept of freedom could be improved if he incorporated some concept of social class at the theoretical level, even at the cost of stepping outside the neoclassical tradition. |
