Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Vibhuti Patel1
This scholarly and insightful paper makes a very important intellectual interven-
tion in today’s context of macroeconomic policies informed by the neoliberal
logic of development that political leaders and mainstream economists of nation
states all over the globe are imposing. The author, Professor M.A. Oommen, a
veteran development economist, rightly avers that economic theories have to be
grounded on social reality. His attention is on the ends and means of economics.
The author provides a detailed account of the theoretical unfolding of growth
theories starting from Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ to neoliberal thinking marked
by an ‘invisible heart’. He minces no words against economic thinking that
valourises the philosophy of ‘might is right’ and ‘market fundamentalism’. He has
made a strong case in favour of the human development approach and right-based
perspective and draws inspiration from theories of social justice, distributive justice
and gender justice. The author has provided insights into the capabilities approach
put forward by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum that advocates that capabili-
ties supply guidance superior to that of utility and resources and ensures universal
human rights. Thus right to food, shelter, education, freedom, justice and bodily
integrity get integrated into the human development growth models. He also avers
that this approach brings economics closer to ethics and justice.
The author criticises Lionel Robbins for dividing countries into ‘developed’ and
‘developing’ as this type of classification is ahistoric and asocial and camouflages
the colonial exploitation of the global south by the global north for over 200 years
in Africa and Latin America. Economic benefits derived by institutionalisation
of slavery in the African continent for over five centuries that provided primitive
accumulation of capital by the so-called ‘developed countries’ never get mentioned
in economics textbooks. Not only this, contributions of subsistence economies
in ensuring livelihoods and unpaid care economy are not only never recognised
1
Professor, Advanced Centre for Women's Studies, School of Development Studies, Tata Institute
of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Corresponding author:
Vibhuti Patel, Professor, Advanced Centre for Women's Studies, School of Development Studies,
702, 7th Floor, Prof. M. S. Gore Academic Block-1, New Academic building 2, Naoroji Campus, Tata
Institute of Social Sciences, V.N. Purav Marg, Deonar, Mumbai 400088, India.
Emails: vibhuti.np@gmail.com; vibhuti.patel@tiss.edu
2 Social Change 47(3)
or acknowledged, but they are also attributed traits such as ‘laggard’, ‘parasites’,
‘suckers’, ‘unskilled’ or ‘mere beneficiaries of the economic development’.
The author appreciates the theories that deconstruct ‘social exclusion’ of the
marginalised sections of society on the ground of caste, class, race, religion,
ethnicity, language, age and gender. He acknowledges intersectionality that creates
overlapping and interdependent structures and systems of disadvantage and
discrimination, subordination and subjugation. He also focuses on some concerns,
widely debated over the last 200 years, that is, evaluating individual and collec-
tive well-being about which the neoclassical marginalist school is quite evasive.
While deconstructing the development literature produced by the World Bank and
some UN agencies, the authors points out the influence of Vilfredo Pareto.
Professor Oommen makes a convincing argument for the affirmative action
taken by the state and non-state actors to compensate for historical injustices to
socio-economically deprived sections of society. He also emphasises the need for
equity to attain social justice and institutionalisation of structures and mechanisms
for inclusive polices for socio-economically excluded sections of the economy, as
free forces of market have not proved to be an equaliser for different sections with
mutually exclusive interests. He supports the capabilities approach because of its
usefulness in constructing a normative conception of social justice, in address-
ing gender and caste-based differentiations and subordination-domination power
relationships based on race, religion and location. The capabilities approach
advocates entitlements of each and every human being for his or her portion of
the development cake. This approach helps in evolving policies for social pro-
tection and social security to enhance capabilities of people to exercise greater
freedom and substantive justice. While reading this thought provoking article,
I was reminded of famous statement of Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stieglitz
(2007), ‘Development is about transforming lives of people, not just transforming
economies.’
and the World Bank. The economic hardships of a large majority of the toiling
masses have resulted in social and political unrest and the ruling elite have under-
mined the democratic ethos to ruthlessly crush the agitated masses. Neoliberal
macroeconomic measures and authoritarian political regimes go hand in hand.
A large majority of Nobel Laureates in Economics, except Professor Amartya
Kumar Sen and Professor Joseph Stieglitz, have not even demanded a review of
these anti-people, macro-economic measures that force the urban and rural poor
to live a dehumanised existence.
The author has critically reflected on concepts, theories, growth and develop-
ment models of established economists of the industrialised world who have a
agenda setting power in economics. What he misses out is the contribution of
gender economics as an academic discipline that has engendered economic think-
ing over the last three decades.
opportunities, wage differentials and ownership of land and property. The implicit
relations are those embedded in relations of power and in hierarchies are more
difficult to measure. Located in households, in kinship networks, in communi-
ties, in custom, religion and culture, these intra-household inequalities result in
the unequal distribution of care and nurturance, opportunities and power, control
over resources and decision-making, dependence rather than self-reliance as well
as unjust-unequal distribution of work, drudgery and even food. The overwhelm-
ing structures of patriarchy crush the potential of a large majority of women under
its weight through the control of women’s destiny throughout her life cycle, from
womb to tomb. ‘Super women’ who are able to look after the interests of each and
every stake holder are survivors in this model. In the Indian context, women’s
predicament in the economic development is determined by the complex interplay
of power relations based on class, caste, ethnicity and religion.
and food consumption patterns among different communities, public utility ser-
vices such as education, transport, sanitation and public health. Gender econo-
mists have done pioneering work to understand the demographic profile of women
and sex ratio. Formulation of gender aware data system on literacy, education
level, employment and earnings, health and well-being helps proper planning and
policy making for empowerment of women. Inter-district, inter-state and cross
country comparisons of women’s empowerment are obtained from the gender-
related development index (GDI). GDI owes its origin to its precursor, the human
development index (HDI), three main components of which are per capita income,
educational attainment and life-expectancy which is a proxy for health attain-
ment. Gender disparities are measured keeping these three indicators in mind.
The current development debate has resulted in the generation of meaningful
indicators of human development. The comparative data of 130 countries, regard-
ing the HDI and GDI, reveal that gender equality does not depend entirely on
the income level of society. So high economic growth alone cannot and will not
guarantee the development of a majority of the world’s population (Patel, 2002).
Contemporary Concerns
The human development approach which focuses on demographic, health, educa-
tional and human rights profiles have revealed that there is an urgent need to re-
examine this approach by conducting participatory action research and rapid rural
appraisal not by social scientists alone but in collaboration with other professionals
such as scientists, doctors, occupational health and safety experts, engineers and
lawyers who believe that like them, citizens from the subsistence sector also have
a right to enjoy the fruits of economic development in terms of food security, safe
transport, clean environment, secure housing and healthy life. Thus development
economists have to be interdisciplinary in their thinking and get out of playing with
Lego games of model building based on abstractions and generalisations. Professor
Oommen’s article provides rich food for thought in this direction.
References
Boserup, E. (1970). Women’s role in economic development. London: George. Allen &
Unwin Ltd.
Patel, V. (2002). Women’s challenges of the new millennium. Delhi: Gyan Publications.
Stieglitz, J. (2007). Rich countries, poor people? New Perspective Quarterly 24(1), 7–9.