This project is maintained by amartrics
From Hans Rosling’s perspective, what is the difference between the “western world” and the “third world”? How do preconceived notions skew people’s views on these two “realms” of human development? To put things frankly, the “western” and “third” worlds are often thought of as two entirely different universes. One is viewed as modern, industrialized, and safe; the other as an ongoing project in human development and flourishing. However, as Hans Rosling points out in his video, this simple idea vastly misrepresents the real-life data of our one world. There is a far smaller gap – in terms of GDP, income, family sizes, child mortality rates, and increasingly, freedoms and unfreedoms – between what many western individuals consider the “developed” or “first” world and the “third” world. The graphs Rosling presented during his TED Talk clearly demonstrate how many countries that are considered “third” world have made great leaps in progress over time in comparison to the slowing growth of “western” countries. Continuing to perceive the “western” world as “us” and the rest of the world as “them” will only serve as a roadblock in actually achieving an equalized vision of the world, as well as in recognizing the steps that many members of the “third world” have taken to accomplish this aim over the years.
Which comes first – wealth or health – in the development of economies and communities? Education and accessible healthcare are vital to the development of a thriving economy. As Rosling points out in his video, a country cannot attain fiscal wellbeing without first establishing a stable state of existence for the majority of a populace. The faster one attains health; the faster one can develop wealth. For example, the social development accomplished during the peak of the CCP’s political power (e.g. family planning, government health programs) led to a controlled spike in population and subsequently wealth that lasted through the reign of several Chinese leaders and through the modern day. Additionally, as observed by Amartya Sen in his book Development as Freedom health and wealth are inextricably linked as codependent hallmarks of development along with political freedoms, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. Establishing health before wealth ultimately allows communities of all sizes to achieve higher standards of living – and development.
What is development? When writing about development, Amartya Sen succinctly describes the process as the expansion of freedoms and the removal of unfreedoms. Specifically, he describes freedoms as accessible to all individuals, and inclusive of political liberties, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, and protective security. While not entirely supporting a socialist ideal of universal opportunity, Sen describes these hallmarks as vital parts of a whole that rely on each other to function properly, meaning that these factors must be open to all, but dependent on the free agency of individuals.
What are some of the sources of unfreedoms must be removed to achieve development? Why is free and sustainable agency a major engine of development? Corrupt governments or ruling powers, lacking social systems, poor or inadequate access to healthcare, universal approaches to problems that require finely-tuned approaches, unfair labor laws, the suppression of media and free expression, a lack of transparency and freedom in market exchanges – these and many more all constitute unfreedoms in the context of development. Removing these and similar roadblocks is not a one-step solution to achieving “development,” but the process can gradually lead to important upswings in statistical indicators of prosperity (e.g. annual GDP, family GDP, controlled population growth, economic success, accessible sources of healthcare, etc). In terms of the effectiveness of any developmental programs, free agency is necessary in order to apply fine-tuned solutions to specific, localized issues.
What does Sen say about anti-market sentiment in the context of human development? How does this generically negative viewpoint relate to the establishment of free speech? While one could argue that social programs like universal income, staggered tax rates, and entirely equalized hiring opportunities could lead to far greater heights of development than a competitive market environment, Amartya Sen clearly believes that a free and open market is an essential motivation towards development. In Sen’s view, limiting market interactions is akin to limiting expression or freedom of speech; he perceives both as natural rights, as the exchange of ideas and philosophies is just as essential as the exchange of goods and services. His specific thoughts on improving accessibility and removing class-based roadblocks to more equitable markets are not entirely clear (in the sense that he does not seem to lean towards one or another binary political definition or vision of the “free market”), but he definitely perceives both free speech and the free market as essential to human development.
Who were Condercet and Malthus, and what did they observe about development and population? Thomas Malthus was an English economist who most famously came up with a population theory linked to linear growth. His belief that abundant resources would always lead to population growth is flawed in that it disregards social reasoning, social programs, and the impacts of education on human development. Nicolas de Condorcet was a French rationalist who argued that in tangent with the “perfectibility of mankind” (e.g. access to education, healthcare, economic opportunities) a population will decrease or taper off over time. Condorcet’s model of population growth is innately closer to reality, as it considers the social and developmental aspects of growth as opposed to its mere biological and natural factors.