Third WorldQuarterly, Vol21, No 6, pp 1071 – 1080, 2000 Globalizationand the limits of neoliberaldevelopment doctrine RichardSandbrook Developmentas Freedom Amartya Sen NewYork: Al fredKnopf, 1999 pp 366, Nobellaureate AmartyaSen off ers aneloquent exposition and defence of today’s dominantdevelopment thinking in Developmentas Freedom . Adept in philosophicalas well as economicanalysis andacclaimed forthe clarity ofhis prose,Sen is well qualied to construct apersuasive conceptualand ethical groundingfor what I shall call ‘pragmatic neoliberalism’. This market-oriented approachis far removedfrom the crudereductionism oforthodox neoclassical analysis. Althoughmacroeconomic ref orms remain central, this newperspective adoptshuman well-being rather thanmere growthas its goaland broadens the developmentagenda to includepolitical, social andinstitutional reforms. Certainly, developmentis badlyin needof a workableand humane guide to action.Although certain regionsand countries ofthe developingworld are achievinghigh to respectable growthrates, problemsabound: growing numbers ofpoor in SouthAsia andAfrica, deepening inequalities betweenand within countries,dangerous volatility as capital washes in andout of vulnerable emergingmarkets, widespreadecological decline,f aulty democratic transitions, andstate collapse andcivil war,especially in Africa.To maintain one’s optimism in these parlouscircumstances is difcult, butSen manages this feat. His positive message is clear: peoplein developingcountries woulddo well to adoptfree markets, strictly delimit the role ofthe state, promoteliberal – demo- cratic institutions, ensurethe provisionof basic education,health care and(i f possible) safety-nets, andwelcome open discussion ofissues. This routewill create the preconditionsfor a harmoniousand reasoned progress towards a more prosperous,just society. Althoughthis is anestory,Sen’ s pragmatic brandof neoliberalism purveys afalse promise to the poorand socially excluded.Sen portrays a worldof ‘reasonedsocial progress’(p 279) in whichcitizens, throughinformed and rational discussion in the contextof free speechand f ree markets, mayselect policies to promotea just andprosperous society. It is aworldin whichthe destructive side-effects ofactually existing markets disappear.This worldis one RichardSandbrook is atthe Munk Center forInternational Studies, University ofToronto, 100 George Street, Toronto,Ontario M5S 1AI, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. ISSN0143-6597 print; 1360-2241 online/ 00/061071-10 Ó 2000 ThirdWorld Quarterly DOI: 10.1080/01436590020012052 1071 FEATURE REVIEWS in whichmany of us wouldlike to live. Unfortunately,though, the vast majority ofpoor and oppressed people do not, and will not,inhabit this idealized world. Toachieve development, de ned by Sen as the expansionof freedom, they will usually haveto confront,not just dictatorial states benton dominating markets, butglobal and national powerstructures rootedin the market economy.The false promise ofSen’ s neoliberalism is to offera harmoniousroute to the expansion offreedom, merely byexpanding personal liberties andhumanely adjusting individuals to the exigencies ofglobal market competition. II Sen’s pragmatic neoliberalism closely parallels today’s dominantdevelopment thinking,as epitomized bythe formulations ofthe WorldBank. But Senis afar moreeloquent advocate of market-based development than the committee-dom- inated international nancial institutions. Acritical reviewof his arguments, therefore,will suggest certain limitations ofcontemporary neoliberal thoughtin general. Senconstructs his theory’s normativefoundations by equating development with the expansionof freedom, and then de ning this freedomto encompassnot onlypolitical liberties, access to essential services andthe reductionof depriva- tions, butalso participation in market exchanges.As well, heposits amutually reinforcingrelationship amonghis variousfreedoms. His approach,in anutshell, is this: Expansionof freedom is viewed … bothas the primary end and as the principal meansof development. Development consists of the removal of various types of unfreedomthat leave people with little choice and little opportunity of exercising theirreasoned agency … Theintrinsic importance of human freedom, in general, as thepreeminent object of development is strongly supplemented by theinstrumental effectivenessof freedoms of particular kinds to promotefreedoms of other kinds … For example,there is strong evidence that economic and political freedoms help to reinforceone another, rather than being hostile to one another … Similarly,social opportunitiesof education and health care, which may require public action, complementindividual opportunities of economic and political participation and alsohelp to foster our own initiatives in overcoming our respective deprivations. (p xii) Senthus offers anintegrated andholistic modelof development, in whichthe variousfreedoms that combineto shapethe quality ofan individual’ s lifeare mutually reinforcing.Readers will ndthis conceptof a virtuouscircle of development,in whichall goodthings progresstogether, highly attractive. As a pragmatic neoliberal,Sen, also advocatesa delimited butnot wholly passive role forthe state. Governments,he maintains, shouldprotect economic stability (preventingeven ‘ modest’in ation, p 138)and provide defence, policingand environmental protection. There ‘ may’also beanargument for the publicprovision of basic education,health care andsafety-nets. Senhedges his analysis, however;public provision of even these basic services mayhave to be subject to means-testing, andthe state shouldprovide them onlyif it commands 1072 THE LIMITSOF NEOLIBERAL DEVELOPMENT DOCTRINE sufcient resources andif their provisiondoes not entrench undue dependency ongovernment. TheWorld Bank, by far the most inuential purveyorof development theory andstrategy, has developeda verysimilar developmentmodel. This organization distanced itselfin the 1990sfromits earlier austere andpure neoliberalism by embracinga morepragmatic, holistic approach.Under pressure to justify its very existence, the Bankhas progressivelybroadened its developmentdoctrine. 1 A major impetus was the disappointingperformance of ‘ structural adjustment’— programmesdesigned to checkin ation, balance budgets, deregulate markets, openeconomies and privatize state corporations—especially in Latin America andAfrica. These failures spurredmainstream developmentagencies andaca- demics to innovatetheoretically, largely byabsorbing popular concepts and challenges into areinventedneoliberalism. Ofparticular signicance among the challenges to the Bank’s position was UNICEF’stelling critique in 1987( Adjust- mentwith aHumanFace )andits extensionby the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP)in its annual HumanDevelopment Report , which rst appearedin 1990.‘Sustainable humandevelopment’ , as propoundedby the UNDP andan array of non-governmental organizations, rejects anexclusive focuson the growthof gross national productand a top-down,externally drivenstrategy fordeveloping countries. These organizations argue that ‘the ultimate test of developmentpractice is that it shouldimprove the natureof people’ s lives, and advocatethat it shouldbe founded on participation anda moreequal partnership betweendonors and developing countries’ . 2 Inthe 1990srst the WorldBank andlater the IMF andWorld Trade Organization supplemented their neoclassical economicdoctrine with adeclaredcommitment to povertyreduction, gender equity,enhanced participation, pluralism, humanrights andpartnership. This morepragmatic approach,culminating in WorldBank President James Wolfensohn’s ‘ComprehensiveDevelopment Framework’ , 3 is nowextravagantly toutedas anewparadigm for development. Yet the elements ofthis approach appearedas early as 1989. 4 This modelfeatures amarket-basedstrategy that is holistic, synergistic and complex.First, it encompasses political andsocial, in additionto conventionalmacroeconomic or market, goals. Next, these goals are complementaryand mutually reinforcing.And third, ef cient market systems are deemedto requirethe supportiveaction ofeffective national states. Theparallels to Sen’s formulations are striking. Theso-called ‘post-Washingtonconsensus’ reects these assumptions, althoughvast controversies swirl within the foldover the properpace, sequencing, and mix ofreforms forany particular country, regionor period. 5 Notcoincidentally, this pragmatic neoliberalism has muchin commonwith the ThirdWay, which provides the ideological foundationsf orcertain powerful Western governments.Both doctrines developedas areaction to the limitations ofthe free-market fundamentalism ofthe Thatcherand Reagan era. The ‘ Third Way’, as advocatedin particular byBritish Prime Minister TonyBlair andUS President Bill Clinton,urges a moreforcef ul role forthe state thanthat envisagedby old-style liberalism (NorthAmerican neoconservatism). But this enhancedrole is limited to supply-sideactivities, especially honingthe capacity ofcitizens, rms andthe national economyas awholeto competewithin an 1073 FEATURE REVIEWS inexorablyadvancing global market economy.This priority directs governmental attention to improvinguniversal educationand technical training,as well as technologicalresearch anddevelopment. Additionally, the state assumes re- sponsibility forproviding minimally adequatesafety nets forthose individuals whocannot market themselves effectively. TheThird Way, however, does not advocatemajor redistributive reforms orregulative measures