All this and much more in this fine book I find convincing. Problems, however, emerge. First, although it is very important to see that development includes more than merely reducing economic scarcity, it seems unhelpful to define poverty as deprivation of basic capabilities i.e., the absence of freedom. It is certainly true that a rich and well fed person in a totalitarian society suffers great loss. The label unfree rather than poor is far more helpful in defining what needs to change.
Poverty is only one albeit very serious problem that many human beings face.
If we label all human deprivation poverty, then we run the danger of minimizing the terrible reality of gross deficiency of food, clothing, and housing. Only if we must define development as merely overcoming poverty rather than overcoming all human deprivation is there any reason to broaden the definition of poverty as Sen does. Second, and far more serious, is Sen s argument that a highly individualistic notion of freedom is the goal of development. He is very clear. Freedom means the capability of individuals to lead the kinds of lives they value.