Opinion
Freedom as development
Forms of freedom are not only primary ends of growth and development but also its principal meansSarin Ghimire
Society, in general, has moved on in every sense from the past century. The twentieth century, and more so Nepal, has looked towards participatory and democratic governance as the pre-eminent model of political organisation. The economy has opened up and concepts of human rights and political liberty are very much being embraced. Yet, we also see astonishing levels of poverty, deprivation, oppression, unfulfilled basic needs, widespread hunger, violation of political freedoms, weak basic liberties, gender violence and a threat to our environment, as well as the sustainability of our economic and social lives.
All of the above issues comprise the nucleus of the exercise of development. Development concentrates on the interplay between certain crucial instrumental freedoms, which include political freedoms, social facilities, protective security, transparency guarantees and economic opportunities. Development can be seen as a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. The freedom of individuals focuses on the expansion of a person’s capabilities to lead the kind of lives they value. Focusing on freedom, in fact, contrasts with the traditional views of development, such as growth in gross national product, a rise in income levels, industrialisation, technological advances and social modernisation.
Social and economic arrangements—for example, basic education and health care, political and civil rights, for example, the liberty to participate in public discussions and voice one’s opinions—are some of the principles of freedom. Citizens of Brazil or South Africa may be richer in terms of per capita Gross National Product than the citizens of Sri Lanka but the latter have significantly higher life expectancy rates. The economist Adam Smith once noted, freedom of exchange and transaction is itself part and parcel of the basic liberties that people have reason to value. Being against an open market can be considered as being against having an open conversation. Freedom to enter markets, access to product markets and participate in overall economic interchange plays a crucial role for small cultivators and struggling producers.
Reforms in Asia
In this context, China has been able to take more advantages from its economic reforms than India, even though India has shown relative improvements. Pre-reform China, which was highly suspicious of the market, did not have the same views when it came to basic education and widely shared healthcare. By the time China opened up, they had highly literate people, especially the young, with good educational facilities for the majority. Countries like South Korea and Taiwan too had a similar educational system where the educated played a major role in seizing economic opportunities offered by a supportive market system.
In contrast, half of India’s population was still illiterate when its markets opened in the 1990s and the situation hasn’t improved much. Its social problems and its negligence of education and healthcare left India less prepared for the expanding market.
The foremost example of enhancing economic growth with social opportunities, especially in basic education, is Japan. Its development was supported by its highly literate human resource. The so-called East Asian revolution, to a great extent, was based on similar connections. This approach goes against and undermines the belief that has been so dominant in many policy circles that human development (expansion of education, health care and other conditions of human life) is a kind of luxury that only richer countries can afford. But East Asian economies opted comparatively early for massive expansion of education and healthcare, in many cases, before they even broke the restraints of general poverty. And they have reaped as they have sown.
A great number of people in the world are still being denied freedom in terms of political liberty and basic civil rights. This has also been seen to stimulate economic growth for a rapid economic development, more so by Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. But more comprehensive inter-country comparisons have not provided any confirmation or evidence that authoritarian politics in fact benefits economic growth.
Where Nepal stands
Nepal, having emerged from a decade-long insurgency, has had a few positive improvements but there is massive catching up to do in terms of commitment to human capabilities and capacities. On the social side, literacy rate is around 60 percent, which is more than double what we had two decades ago; youth literacy especially is at a remarkable 85 percent. Likewise, primary education enrollment is also at an all-time high at 94 percent with an almost equal number of boys and girls attending school. But secondary education is still relatively low and the quality of teachers as well as education is below par.
On the economic front, our labour force has doubled to around 18 million from the past decade but during the same time, the unemployment rate has stayed at above an astonishing 40 percent, leaving literate youths with no option but to migrate. Similarly, about 40 percent of people have access to all weather roads in Nepal with almost 60 percent concentrated in the Tarai plains. Poor access and shoddy maintainance of roads and electricity have constrained productivity growth.
Lastly, political violence has subsided with the peace process coming to a close. The recent election, largely termed free and fair, has provided citizens with a chance to express their political views. But again, democracy has yet to be institutionalised and the traditional bureaucratic system still prevails. Our government has miserably failed to control corruption and institute a rule of law and regulatory quality, undermining the fact that good governance and growth are positively related.
The quality of governance can be glimpsed through the quality of public services. So, weak governance, in terms of socio-economic facilities and ineffective monitoring, have only widened the gap between citizens and the government. Three sets of mechanisms that can be considered for better public service are empowering citizens, engaging local governments with the private sector and most importantly, expanding the use of information and communication technology. For low-income countries like Nepal, a form of governance that supports growth is necessary while greater accountability and the elimination of corruption is an absolute must for all countries.
Forms of freedom are not only primary ends of growth and development but also its principal means. We also have to understand the connections among freedoms of different kinds. Political freedoms and protective security in the form of free speech, elections and rule of law to help promote economic security; social freedom in the form of basic education, skill training and health facilities for economic participation; and economic facilities in the form of participation in trade and production to
generate personal income as well as public resources for social facilities—are some of the core freedom factors to lay the foundation for sustainable economic growth in Nepal.
Ghimire is an economics graduate and works in the Research Department at the East West Center, Washington DC